1998 (5) TMI 26 - SC - Customs

Whether appellants should not have been asked to issue a detention certificate or to bear demurrage and container detention charges? Held that - Looking to the totality of circumstances pertaining to the import of the consignments under the four Bills of Entry and the inordinate delay of about six years for their release the High Court has passed the impugned orders directing the appellants to issue a detention certificate and bear the demurrage and container detention charges. They are obviously orders passed in the special circumstances of the present case and particularly the conduct of the Customs authority in not releasing the goods even after the order of unconditional release dated 11-8-1995 passed by their own Chief Commissioner. The conduct of the Customs officers concerned is also under investigation. We do not think that this is a case were any intervention at our hands is required. The apprehension of the appellants that this will constitute a precedent is not justified because it is clearly an order which is meant to do justice to the respondent looking to the totality of circumstances and the conduct of the appellants. Obviously for any delay on the part of the respondent in taking delivery of the goods after 5-4-1997 the respondent will have to bear the consequences. For the period prior to 5-4-1997 however the order of the High Court does not require any intervention from us. The appellants shall file a progress report relating to the departmental inquiry by 30th November 1998. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in release of goods under four Bills of Entry.
2. Detention order issued by Customs Department.
3. Dispute regarding demurrage and container charges.
4. Allegations of mala fides against Customs officers.
5. Compliance with court orders and resolution of charges dispute.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal from a judgment and order of the Delhi High Court regarding the delay in releasing goods under four Bills of Entry. The respondent imported synthetic waste but faced issues as the Customs Department claimed the goods were prime fiber, leading to a show cause notice being issued.
2. A detention order was issued against the respondent for non-payment of dues from previous consignments, leading to further complications in releasing the current goods. The High Court found no justification for detaining the goods covered by the Bills of Entry, especially after the Chief Commissioner ordered their unconditional release.
3. Disputes arose regarding demurrage and container charges, with the Shipping Corporation of India demanding payment despite other charges being waived. The court directed the Customs Department to resolve the payment issues and release the goods to the respondent within a specified timeframe.
4. The respondent alleged mala fides on the part of Customs officers, even complaining to the Finance Minister about illegal gratification demands. The court directed the Customs Department to explain the steps taken in response to these serious allegations, leading to an investigation into the officers' conduct.
5. Despite efforts to resolve the charges dispute and issue a detention certificate, the respondent did not take delivery of the goods due to internal disputes. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the orders were specific to the case's circumstances and the Customs officers' conduct. The appellants were required to provide a progress report on the departmental inquiry.